wft oh, never mind. Rich parents

[geonuc]

GJ, you write as someone who passionately distrusts the government, and that's not a bad thing. But you must learn to distinguish between good, better and ideal. I have not said the current system is abuse-free. Far from it. I said it is better than one in which the public elects everybody, in particular judges.

Also, you refer to our legislators, governors and president as an 'arbitrary bunch of elected officials'. Arbitrary? Given that you are arguing for even more people to be elected, I suggest you might want to rethink that characterization.

And I did not suggest that the public shouldn't 'second guess' the actions of appointed officials. Whatever second guess means in this context, those are your words, not mine.

And that's Hoo Rah, not Ooh Rah.

[Cyborg Girl]

@geonuc: I don't passionately distrust the government; I passionately distrust the government to handle anything involving violence. I can trust the government to help people, and to help the right ones. I don't trust it to hurt the right people.

Mind, I trust other bodies (like corporations) even less with violent force. I recognize the necessity of violence at times, but I would like to keep its use to an absolute minimum, as the innocent are invariably harmed - by incompetence, by honest mistakes, or by malign intent.

IOW: I'm okay with "nanny state." What I'm against is "abusive stepdad state."

Also, you refer to our legislators, governors and president as an 'arbitrary bunch of elected officials'. Arbitrary? Given that you are arguing for even more people to be elected, I suggest you might want to rethink that characterization.

Actually I'm in favor of appointed judges, not elected. (See "lesser of two evils.")

Re arbitrariness, one of the tendencies I've noticed is that elected officials seem often to be shrewd, manipulative, and good at appearing honest and competent, while actually being neither. Are people like Mitt Romney really fit to make decisions that could harm millions?

And I did not suggest that the public shouldn't 'second guess' the actions of appointed officials. Whatever second guess means in this context, those are your words, not mine.

Right, my bad. I just tend to get a bit edgy whenever people mention the CIA in the same paragraph as fitness for a job, or such, as the agency's activities over the years have been consistently shady, and the people involved have consistently not been held accountable.

And that's Hoo Rah, not Ooh Rah.

Is it? Ah well.

[FZR1KG]

Like I said at the start when I raised the question, not that I disagree with the notion that electing judges is a bad thing but I have it seems different reasons for coming to that conclusion.

From my POV what I've see here in the US is where judges are elected, they basically get voted in by who has the bigger campaign budget (saturation voting), hence they are pretty much selected by business be it small or large business.

In positions where judges are appointed, you pretty much have the same thing. Politicians and lobbyists when combined and shaken gently will get which ever judge they want in power. Add to that long (or life long) appointments the ability to corrupt is pretty easy and long lasting.

With elected judges at least the public has a say in letting go of someone. If enough people are incensed it won't make a difference how much money one campaigns with.

Ultimately I see little difference in the end result of either system. Both in the end get chosen by who has the greatest money to spend on their judicial investments. It's already been shown that elected judges seem to favor businesses more than appointed judges, read an article and an interview with a judge who wants the election process to be finished for those reasons. Just can't remember where I read it.

I think the difference between the two is that with elected officials they naturally sway their decisions towards business because that's who keeps them in the job.
With appointed judges I think they make more impartial decisions until their chain is yanked to remind them how they got their position, naturally the yanking happens infrequently but the chain would be pulled when a big decision needs to be made.

[The Supreme Canuck]

I can speak from experience: that is not what occurs when a judge is appointed. I've seen how the system works. I've spoken with judges, lawyers, and jurists. Generally what happens is that a lawyer or professor becomes so notable in the legal field for having a keen judicial mind that it's clear he or she should be a judge. If it is not clear, they aren't appointed.

Money and campaigning never come into it.

[FZR1KG]

Maybe in Canada.

[The Supreme Canuck]

The place with only appointed judges and no elected ones? Yes. That is how it works here.

[FZR1KG]

I meant where appointed judges aren't a political tool.
Not that I believe it mind you but I do believe that you do.

As an example here in the USA:

Antonin Gregory Scalia (Listeni/skəˈlijə/; born March 11, 1936) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As the longest-serving justice currently on the Court, Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice. Appointed to the Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia has been described as the intellectual anchor of the Court's conservative wing.

He was appointed by Ronald Regan. We all pretty much know that politicians follow the money, in particular the lobbyist money. It's well known Scalia is the "republican" spear head of the Supreme court.
Bottom line, the Supreme court here is a political tool. As for impartial, you can't have impartial with a conservative or liberal lean. That makes no sense. Yet that is how the judges there are appointed.

The US Supreme court is the highest court of the land (unless I'm seriously mistaken) and is politically driven as shown above. They are also appointed. They are biased, not impartial.

At lower levels there is a mix of appointed and elected judges that varies in many cases on a state by state basis.

Net result, the US court system is not impartial at all. We'd like to think it is but it isn't.
The law here is influenced by money. Those that have the money get to have a large say in who gets into judicial system. The law here IMHO has been paid, ordered and delivered a long time ago.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Once again, Canada has a Supreme Court, too. The justices are appointed. They are apolitical. Why? Because Canada has an apolitical judicial culture. The US does not. Why's that? Two factors, I'd imagine: 1) we have never had elected judges, so no judge has ever had to campaign from a partisan position and the system actively avoids selecting politicized individuals and 2) we have a Parliamentary system which, for various reasons related to the power of the Government/PM compared to that of the Opposition parties, results in a less contentious appointment process.

What 1) means is that systems that elect judges inherently politicize the judicial system and cause the problems that you state; systems that appoint judges do not.
What 2) means is that the US Congressional/Presidential system of government has been a mistake from the start, at least as concerns judicial appointments.

Point being, if the US made some changes to the way that it selects judges, maybe things would be less like they are now and more like Canada. I mean... you're saying "Well, that's not how it is here. So you don't know what you're talking about." But what I'm saying is that the reason things aren't like this in the US is because the way that the US has set things up is broken. If changes were made to the way that judges are selected in the US it could be like this there, too. My entire point is that things are different in Canada (and the UK, and other places) for reasons. Why not actually fucking look at those reasons and apply their lessons to the US rather than just go on about how fucked you are? Why not try a change rather than mope on about how change is impossible without ever having tried it? Why not actually listen to what the two people who have law degrees are saying rather than dismissing us from a place of smug cynicism?

Do you think that the politicization of the US judicial system isn't studied by academics or taught and discussed in law schools?

Damn it, FZ. You've riled me. But you really seem to be being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

Edit: Yurgh. Sorry, FZ. You seem to have struck a bit of a nerve. Didn't mean to get cross at you. Apologies.

[FZR1KG]

Damn it, FZ. You've riled me. But you really seem to be being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

Edit: Yurgh. Sorry, FZ. You seem to have struck a bit of a nerve. Didn't mean to get cross at you. Apologies.

Don't worry about it mate.
It took me a while to realise you were discussing Canada. Seeing as this thread was about a case in the US I stuck to discussing the situation as it is here.
I even stated at the start that I don't agree with the election system here.
I'm not being contrary, at least as far as I'm concerned because I stated I don't necessarily agree with elected judges but I can see why the population here would be under the impression that they don't want appointed ones.

Corruption here is not something I'm not used to. It goes from the police, the judiciary and to politics. The system is adversarial to a huge fault, that being winning is more important than any other factor, even being right. The attitudes of a lot of people are pretty much all about confrontation rather than resolution. To give you an example, ask anyone here (where I live) what they would do if they found a burglar walking in their yard and the overwhelming response is, "Shoot the fucker! Its my property".
Ask the same person what they would do if they saw someone that needed help on their property and they aren't so sure how they would respond. Too many variables, might kick them off the property (not my problem attitude), might shoot them and bury them anyway (just to be sure attitude), might help them if they were really in need or were a good looking woman.
Then ask how they tell the difference between a burglar and someone that just happens to be on the property...well they are on my property so does it matter?

Welcome to redneck America where I live.

Why not actually fucking look at those reasons and apply their lessons to the US rather than just go on about how fucked you are? Why not try a change rather than mope on about how change is impossible without ever having tried it?

As for doing something to make the system change.
I've been doing that for many years. I raise the issues, but many can't see an issue.
A small list of topics I've had over the years where nothing I've written or said has made any impact on the recipients who needed it:

1) The fact that the USA denies many citizens the right to vote based on their residence which is according to their own charter, undemocratic. Result of that, is the consensus that I just don't understand the system, that every country has some little quirk that goes against democracy, define democracy etc... IOW leave it alone, you have no right to question it.
2) US foreign policy. So many topics there it would have lists of its own. Result, I've been told I'm antisemitic (if I ever happen to disagree with something the US does in relation to Israel) been accused of defending Muslim terrorists and for condemning Muslims. Pretty impressive to have both. Oh, and that I really should just get out of the USA. Seems if I disagree with something the, get the fuck out of the country response is sure to follow.
3) Lobbying. I've been tackling this here on FWIS, in public, with political figures and with the general public. Result: no one gives a shit enough to do anything.
4) Health care. A subject I've been tackling for years and get little traction. I tackle it in public, with elected officials and here on FWIS.
5) Gun control. Haha fucking ha. I'd have more luck convincing the average person that if you shoot your own dick off with a 12guage shotgun, it will grow back twice the size.
6) The legal system. Well, you've seen how that goes. Outside of FWIS the general consensus is that its not perfect but its the best we got and its ours. So no one is even remotely interested in even looking at any problems. Oh and the I don't understand it. Here's the thing, I don't have to understand the exact nature of the system to understand when something is wrong.
7) The finance system, wealth disparity, money makers, poverty levels in the richest country in the world. Yeah. After many years I'm still tackling it and getting no where. The general consensus is if you don't like the system you don't have to use it. Yeah. Right. Lets not even go there. Oh, and I'm accused of being a socialist, liberal or communist or all three with some others thrown in for good measure.
8) The ridiculous time and money spent on political campaigns.
9) The ignorant patriotism. Classic examples are US flags torn, frayed and weathered flying constantly. It's insulting to the flag and the nation yet considered patriotic and trust me you don't want to point this out to someone who loves to parade the flag like its a sports team banner.

I had my wife shortly after we got married ask me why I married her if I hate the USA that much! OMFG. The brain washing is so damned complete and thorough. Me pointing out something doesn't mean I hate the country. It's an opportunity to think and maybe come up with a legitimate reason why things are the way they are or spread the word and possibly get something changed by someone who has the power.

I could go on.
So yeah, I have been trying to change things by education and questioning. Let me just say, it doesn't work. I'm done and heading back. There is nothing I say or do that can change a single thing between now and when I'm gone in a few short weeks.
For the record, I don't go on about how fucked I am. I'm pointing out how fucked the systems are. Nor have I given up trying though after many years I think I've earned the right to give up without being accused of not trying.

As an example, I am debt free. I don't have a mortgage, I don't have crippling loans to pay back that are slowly killing me. I'm not locked to a residence in one town, county, state or even country due to debt or any other factor. I am more free than many people with lots of money. I am however pointing out that there are people who are in debt, are losing everything and are being screwed over by a bunch of greedy M.fuckers even if they don't think they are.

Hows that?

***edited to add***

Why not actually listen to what the two people who have law degrees are saying rather than dismissing us from a place of smug cynicism?

I never thought I was using smug cynicism.
Here's the thing, I'm an engineer and I'm not going to be shy about it or pretend it isn't true but I'm of hell of a good electronics design engineer. I worked for the department of defense doing design work at high levels as my second job. My first was 1 months worth. I was teaching engineering at the age of 27, a senior design engineer at 28. I taught myself electronics to the point where I went through engineering without really needing to study. I was designing computer systems and analog stages at 16 years old.
My point in all this is that no matter how damned sure I am of the field I'm in, there will always, ALWAYS be someone with almost no knowledge of the field that will stump me and teach me something new about the field I've been doing for over 30 years.
I call it the not seeing the forest for the trees syndrome.
I can get so involved in the technicalities of the system that I recreate the (electronics) world in my mind that represents the system I'm working with. That's how everyone's mind works in fact. Their mind creates a representation of the real world within itself.
The hardest part is understanding that your minds representation isn't actually the real world. The more the mind gets involved with the virtual world, the less obvious issues are in the real world if they fall outside the virtual model of the mind. That's where most people get stuck. They see only the virtual world so can't think outside it. It takes years of active conscious practice to work both the real and the virtual worlds.

Apart from the fallacy of appeal to authority that is the reason I continue to push to understand more completely and far from dismissing qualified professionals, I listen to them more so than unqualified ones. However, I am under no obligation to simply accept their virtual view any more than they are to accept mine.
A classic example is a misunderstanding. If you didn't understand me correctly you give a response and if I don't question it then I have now corrupted my virtual view of the world yet have it on good authority that I am right.
So no, I don't make smug cynicism, I try to get to the fundamental of the issue and make sure it's what I think it is so that I'm not getting recreating a false model.

If I really wanted to make smug cynicism I'd just say that you are young and have a lot to learn about the real world, about yourself and how the two relate. That however is self defeating, rude, will provide nothing of value and is basically insulting the natural progression of experience.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Yeah, like I said, you hit a nerve. It kind of felt like you were saying "Grow up a little and then you'll agree with me. Now run along and let the grownups talk."

I was wrong, and I'm sorry. And I was being rude. But you can see how that would be irritating, I'm sure, had you actually been saying that. Especially when we're talking about law.

[FZR1KG]

TSC, you need to understand something so I'll write it here.

I LIKE YOU.
I RESPECT YOU.
I LIKE YOUR MIND.
I LIKE OUR EXCHANGES.

I'm not interested in insulting people I like.
Especially when there are so damned many assholes that need it.

So don't worry about it and you have nothing to appologise over because quite frankly it didn't even bother me. I did write a thesis for you though so you can understand where I'm coming from.

I'm also really sorry I upset you. I had no idea I was doing so.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Hey, welcome to knowing a guy with an anxiety disorder that often manifests as a fear of being judged behind his back, even by friends and family, as being stupid or foolish.

So, you know, not your fault. My broken brain's fault. Sometimes even I don't realize that's what's going on. Tends to make me prickly, frustrated, and defensive.

Thanks, though. Really.

[FZR1KG]

I can't judge you.
I was neither appointed or elected to do so. LOL

What authority gives you the right to; arrest, put on trial, imprison, judge, etc?
First lesson in law isn't it?

If you feel anyone is judging you ask them under what authority they have the right to do so.
You do this in your mind because the reality is, they have no authority other than the one you give them. Much like the rest of life.

[squ1d]

Looking at sentencing in any country is depressing. A friend of mine caught 8 years a few months ago, for some fairly considerable white collar crime. Since then I have noticed murderers, meth lab cooks and rapists getting off with much lighter sentences. Said friend messed up and deserved some time, but he also walked into a station and fessed up right at the start. An appeal by a QC resulted in a year being taken off, but he still has 3.9 before being paroled. In the meantime every time I open the paper, I notice people that have ruined or ended other peoples lives getting half the time.

[FZR1KG]

Lets not get into the kangaroo court system Oz has.
I have a boat to prepare and that topic would take all the remaining time I have. lol